My comment was tongue-in-cheek, of course. ![]() I also find it hilarious to find hefty copyright/license infringement discussion on a DVD ripping board, in a thread casually discussing possible changes to resizing in a non-commercial application, of all things. The original question remains: is it good change for resizing behavior that represents more "correct" result and who needs sharper images may apply some advanced post-sharpening, or current is what people are expecting and close results can be attained by post-blurring? Mod image is slightly sharper and still has less artifacts than blurred one but result is very close. Results in an image that is close to indistinguishable from mod. Taking Beach house mod/vanilla into Photoshop and applying the following to vanilla: Results are definitely softer but that can be countered with post-sharpening or more aggressive b/c settings (hence the primary choice of BicubicResize). Removal of this "mysterious stairstepping" is exactly what caught my attention. ![]() Upon close inspection you may notice that the modification () actually kills the ringing (and mysterious stairstepping ones, too) artifacts that would normally be present (). I'm not sure if these pictures are good for testing, regardless, I took these pictures with my camera so I release them under the WTFPL () license. On the pulley picture I like your modification, the aliasing of the expanded metal is greatly reduced but the belt and the threads on the tensioner are noticeably softer.Īlso here a zip containing the original and resized pictures: Pictures.7z () ![]() It seems your modification (v3) is a little softer than the original, but can cut down on aliasing quite a bit (surprise surprise :p).įor the beach house I like the original bicubic a bit more, except in the edges of the house, white boat, and where the grass meets the sky. I imagine the free stuff over at is safe to screenshot for testing purposes.įWIW I did some test with a couple of pictures using BicubicResize with b=0, c=1. Once I get a handful, I'll have look at this resizer. There's some really nifty ones out there.ĭeviantArt also has some licence filters, too. I'm going to spend some time this weekend browsing for a lot of very-public-domain images. :mad: I knew image licences were annoying, but never would have imagined it was this tedious!Īny method I pick, there's a lot more clicking since there's a lot of redirecting involved stacked on top of the clicking just to get to the image itself! :mad: While ext:BMP yields far less results.Ī few other services out there just link to existing public domain images with a lot of redirecting (Ghostery did not like it). You have to hit the "search tools" button to see it and change it.īut, I belive their licence check is different, or the places it looks doesn't set a licence as searching in PNG yields few results (worth looking at). Note: That Google has its own "usage rights" when you search images. ![]() This gives mixed results with different licences. There's also no way to search by file extension.Īlthough, you can do a custom google search to find png images with some rights reserved. Cannot search with a blank entry only for lincece-filtered images. And the advanced search with licence filter enabled requires a word query. A lot of clicks to get anything.Īlthough, that is only limited to last 100 images in each category. Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to all. For public domain images, one can try Wikimedia Commons.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |